Talk:Meteorite classification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Geology / Meteorites  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Meteorite classification is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (marked as High-importance).


This article needs a section on petrologic types.

Inappropriate link removal[edit]

I do not agree with users Mannheim_34 and Ohnoitsjamie with their removal of any link to webpages hosted on a commercial website (almost any .com domain). I expressed my opinion here and here. I ask to the community: are these in your opinion links to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising"?

I don't want to start an edit war so if you agree with my point of view please restore any suitable reference removed [1] from this article. Thanks. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


The weathering addition is not relevant to this page. Meteorite classification is about putting meteorites into groups of related samples, which is a tool for understanding their origins. There are many other properties one can measure for meteorites: weathering, shock, ages, degree of alteration, metamorphism, color, density, and on and on. While one can divide each of these into "classes" the way the weathering scale does, this is not what is meant here by classification. These are secondary processes and can be discussed elsewhere, perhaps in a new article. JeffG (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, a new article sounds reasonable. Let's use more these talkpages... -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent improvements[edit]

I'm really appreciating your work on Meteorite classification and related topics Tobias; it's beginning to be understandable even to this layman. One small point, you removed magmatic/non-magmatic from from {{Meteorites}} (which is fine) yet it's still used in Meteorite_classification#Traditional_classification_scheme in a way that makes it look useful. If we're going to go with the Weisberg et al. scheme then perhaps you should restructure Meteorite classification so that the Weisberg scheme comes first and is fully described while the traditional scheme takes a less staring role? If so, then perhaps the history section should come earlier in the article too (second or third as it does in many articles). -Arb. (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you find my writing understandable. Sometimes my English sentences sound a little weird :). I removed the terms because Weisberg finds them very misleading. Both categories involve magmatic processes. The nonmagmatic meteorites pretty much just got translated into the primitive achondrite meteorites and grouped with the acapulcoites, lodranites, winonaites, urelites and brachinites.
It is a little hard to find out if the older term was fully abandoned. I can find 94 papers that used "non-magmatic meteorite" since 2008. The term "primitive achondrite" is used 836 times. The "Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 1: Meteorites, Comets and Planets" also use "primitive achondrites" and finds the term "nonmagmatic" misleading.
I think we might as well use the Weisberg classification in the template and the "meteorite classification" article. It is the newest published classification and in wide use. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites#Are irons and stony-irons achondrites? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "Meteoritical Bulletin Database, note 6: The Type field shows the classification of the meteorite. If the meteorite was published in both the Catalogue of Meteorites and MetBase (see columns NHMCat and MetBase), both classifications will appear if they do not agree. If the meteorite was just published in one of these sources, the classification from that source will be listed. If the meteorite was published in neither, the classification comes from the Meteoritical Bulletin (approved names) or from unreviewed reports (provisional names)."
Catalogue of Meteorites (2000), 5 ed, ISBN:9780521663038, pp. 696, Cambridge University Press
Material: stone (ST), iron (IR), stony-iron (SI)
Chemical Main Groups:
Ordinary chondrites: H, L, LL, H/L, L/LL
Enstatite chondrites: E, EH, EL
Carbonaceous chondrites: C, CI, CH, CK, CM, CO, CR, CV
Rumuruti type chondrites R (known also as Carlisle Lake type)
Ungrouped chondrites (CHUNGR)
Achondrites: AUB, AEUC, ADIO, AHOW, ANGR
Achondrite subgroups: Polymict, monomict or cumulate achondrites
Primitive achondrites: ALOD, ACAP, ABRA, AURE, AWIN
SNC group achondrites: ACHA, ANAK, ASHE, AOPX
Lunar meteorites: ALUN-A, ALUN-B, ALUN-G
Pallasites (PAL)
Mesosiderites/ Mesosiderites Subgroups: MES, MES-A, MES-B
Ungrouped and Anomalous Meteorites
Petrographic Types (chondrites)
1 to 2 (unequilibrated chondrites, carbonaceous chondrites only)
3.0 to 3.9 (unequilibrated chondrites)
4 to 6 (equilibrated chondrites)
7 (equilibrated chondrites with achondritic texture)
I think that we should mainly follow NHMCat and MetBase too. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If you have access to Metbase you could add the classification scheme as a collapsible template to the article in a similar way like in the history section. It would be very informative to have a few newer catalogs in the article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This is from the User's Manual only ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
O, I see :). I don't have access either. The classification looks similar to the Geochemstry treatise, and also Rubin 2000 (this article). It groups all the irons together, even those that have silicate inclusions which are often classified with the primitive achondrites. Of course we have to modify all the schemes a little because of the new martian meteorite group (NWA 7034) and the IIG and IIF meteorites. But I think that a classification like this one is surely the way to go for the infobox and the bottom template. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)